• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Choicers Say Protests at Tiller's Former Clinic Are Too Disruptve

Still up to the same old tricks
Revenue includes govt grants and donations.
Basically, the only thing that is excluded from revenue are one-time transactions that bring in money, like the sale of part of the business.
[/URL]
If I, yet again, said it wrong, I think you can still get the point.
But thanks for not bringing fascism into it this time. See, it can be done.
 
Last edited:
The numbers may even be more skewed due to the amount of free or amazingly undercharged many of their services and products are.

For example, if all they did one year was to give away a million condoms and do one abortion - 100 percent of their revenue would be from abortions. Since a lot of their work is either uncharged or undercharged, the item they actually charge more for may have more appearance of revenue than other things. So money coming in becomes less important than actual services rendered - 97 percent of which are not abortions. Hell, a lot of their work goes to PREVENTING UNWANTED PREGNANCIES - therefor abortions.
Do you have a link that explains this or is this what you figure. You might be right.
 
1. By offering birth control at reduced rates to poor women they prevented about 620,000 unwanted pregnancies. Stats indicate bit more than a third of those unwanted pregnancies or about 220,000 would have ended in abortions.

2. Now will republican law makers admit that by giving birth control to the poor at reduced rates Planned Parenthood reduced their potential abortion business by about 80 percent? ........

3. I think not.
1. Be very careful making this type of numbers claim.
On the stop and frisk thread, Gaius (sp?) made the very accurate point that there is no way to tell how many murders were prevented just because of arrests made and the number of murders dropping.
In science a control group is needed and it's just not possible to have one for societal studies.

Similarly, there is not way to tell how many pregnancies have been prevented by PP's contraception distribution.

2. Based on this, that claim can never be made.

3. And with good reason.
 
If I, yet again, said it wrong, I think you can still get the point.
But thanks for not bringing fascism into it this time. See, it can be done.

Since there is no difference between PP's income and their revenue, you have no point in this case.

The difference, as the article Minnie linked to explained, was that the Moral Fascists ignored the income PP received from sources other than their health centers. It had nothing to do with the difference between income and revenue.

IOW, it was a lie. It was proven to be a lie, yet you continue to defend it with a dishonest argument
 
Since there is no difference between PP's income and their revenue, you have no point in this case.

The difference, as the article Minnie linked to explained, was that the Moral Fascists ignored the income PP received from sources other than their health centers. It had nothing to do with the difference between income and revenue.

IOW, it was a lie. It was proven to be a lie, yet you continue to defend it with a dishonest argument

I agree.

Also the income from abortions was guesstimates by pro life bloggers.
They took the numbers of abortions and simply multiplied those numbers by $450.
Many PLanned Parenthoods give abortions at reduced rates for the poor.
 
I agree.

Also the income from abortions was guesstimates by pro life bloggers.
They took the numbers of abortions and simply multiplied those numbers by $450.
Many PLanned Parenthoods give abortions at reduced rates for the poor.

Many people (including me) donate money so that poor women can get abortions at reduced rates.


Over 200,000 women (in the United States) a year seek help in funding their abortions through an abortion fund.

Since a little less than a million abortions take place each year in the US that means about 1 out of every 5 or about 20% of the women who get abortions are in financial distress and need help to pay for their abortions.


Here is a <snip> of a woman with 5 children. She loves children but her family was in finanical distress when she found she was pregnant again.
Sonia has 5 kids and her husband was just laid off.

I love my big family...and I love my children too much to have another baby right now.

My husband and I have five children. We love kids and we love having a big family. But when my husband got laid off from his contractor job, having a big family got really hard.

When I found out I was pregnant again, it was terrifying. We love the idea of another child -- but we love the children we have too much to add that kind of stress to our family right now.


I'm only working part-time and I couldn't get maternity leave, so I might not be able to keep my job with another little one.

I hated that we had to make this decision, but it turned out that making the decision was the easiest part.
Because then we had to find the money to pay for an abortion.

We started taking stuff to the pawn shop: our vacuum cleaner, my wedding ring, our family television, the old desktop computer.
When that wasn't enough, we took my husband's tools and his drills.


[That was the hardest trip. My husband's been trying to pick up construction work. Without his tools or his drills, there's hardly anyone who'll hire him.

Even after all that, we were short on what we needed. But the woman at the clinic gave us the name of an abortion fund.<SNIP>

Sonia has 5 kids and her husband was just laid off. | Fund Abortion Now.org
 
1. Since there is no difference between PP's income and their revenue, you have no point in this case.

2. The difference, as the article Minnie linked to explained, was that the Moral Fascists ignored the income PP received from sources other than their health centers. It had nothing to do with the difference between income and revenue.

3. IOW, it was a lie. It was proven to be a lie, yet you continue to defend it with a dishonest argument
1. I'll try to explain it in a different way even though I believe you already understand the difference.
3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions.
13% of their total income is derived from abortions (this includes money the government gives them).
37% of their income from services derives from abortions (this income does not include money the government gives them).
- Each side creates their percentages as part of a different baseline. That's how they can both be mathematically correct, but equally misleading.
Need I come up with a third way of explaining?

2. Goodness, are you suggesting that some on the pro-life side were as misleading as Planned Parenthood?
Another thing, your continued use of the word Fascist, besides being inane, diminishes the sacrifice of those who actually suffered under it.
It's reminiscent of the way "racism" has become meaningless because of its overuse.

3. Correct, it was a lie. Mark Twain's third category of lie.
 
I agree.

Also the income from abortions was guesstimates by pro life bloggers.
They took the numbers of abortions and simply multiplied those numbers by $450.
Many PLanned Parenthoods give abortions at reduced rates for the poor.
That is a weak point in the argument, but probably a fair estimate.
According to their own website, abortions cost an individual between $250 and $950. $450 is probably a fair average, probably even a conservative one.
 
Many people (including me) donate money so that poor women can get abortions at reduced rates.

Here is a <snip> of a woman with 5 children. She loves children but her family was in finanical distress when she found she was pregnant again.
I think you unintentionally point out something about the phrase "pro-choice". Examples of choices would be abortion, adoption, foster care, temporary foster care, family assistance, etc.
If you are pro-choice you are, presumably for all of these.

There are organizations that very willingly assist indigent women who want to have their child but can't afford the baby on their own. Once the child is born they are not forced to keep the baby, and they are helped through any decision they make. This sounds like an organization that a true pro-choice person would support.

Do you?
 
Folks do not realize that they are in the business of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Folks do not seem to care that they do cancer screening and some cancer treatment. They do not seem to care that they offer preventative care, HIV screening and referrals. HEll, do folks even realize they treat men?

People seldom give Hitler credit for the good things he did.
 
I think you unintentionally point out something about the phrase "pro-choice". Examples of choices would be abortion, adoption, foster care, temporary foster care, family assistance, etc.
If you are pro-choice you are, presumably for all of these.

There are organizations that very willingly assist indigent women who want to have their child but can't afford the baby on their own. Once the child is born they are not forced to keep the baby, and they are helped through any decision they make. This sounds like an organization that a true pro-choice person would support.

Do you?

I support any of the expectant woman's choices and I do make donations so the women can their own choice.
I am a pro choice Christian and the Church I am a member of is also pro choice.
My church is a member of the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) is the national community of religious and spiritual people, denominations, and organizations from all faith traditions dedicated to achieving reproductive justice. For people of faith, reproductive justice is a moral imperative, grounded in centuries of sacred texts.

Through education, mobilization and advocacy, we are leading the religious movement to advance the health and well-being of women and families.

RCRC mobilizes the moral force of thousands of clergy, religious leaders, and other people of faith. Together, we work for ethical and responsible policies, laws and resources that make reproductive health care and rights accessible to all. Our religious traditions call us to this sacred work.

As people of faith, we are committed to ensuring that all people and communities can express the blessings of sexuality with health and wholeness.
<SNIP>

History

RCRC was founded in 1973 to safeguard the newly won constitutional right to privacy in decisions about abortion. The Coalition founders were clergy and lay leaders from mainstream religions, many of whom had provided women with referrals to safe abortion services before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The founders believed that there would be at most a ten-year struggle to secure the right to choose. In fact the struggle is far from over. It has changed and intensified, and the stakes are growing.

Today, the Religious Coalition comprises national organizations from major faiths and traditions and religiously affiliated and independent religious organizations, affiliates throughout the country, the national Clergy for Choice network, Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, The National Black Church Initiative, La Iniciativa Latina and individuals who support reproductive choice and religious freedom. We have a strong presence on Capitol Hill, working for policies to ensure reproductive healthservices are available to all, regardless of income and to strengthen reproductive justice.

While our member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty.

Our rational, healing perspective looks beyond the bitter abortion debate to seek solutions to pressing problems such as unintended pregnancy, the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate health care and health insurance, and the severe reduction in reproductive health care services. We support access to sex education, family planning and contraception, affordable child care and health care, and adoption services as well as safe, legal, abortion services, regardless of income. As an organization committed to reproductive justice, we work for public policies that ensure the medical, economic, and educational resources necessary for healthy families and communities that are equipped to nurture children in peace and love.

RCRC - Dedicated to Reproductive Justice

Here is a list of some of the Pro choice chuches and groups:

Pro-choice groups:

Liberal and some mainline denominations: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1

American Baptist Churches-USA (see below),
American Ethical Union,
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
American Jewish Committee,
American Jewish Congress,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
Council of Jewish Federations,
Episcopal Church (USA),
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
Na'Amat USA,
National Council of Jewish Women,
Presbyterian Church (USA),
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Christ,
United Methodist Church,
United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.

Religious groups other than denominations:

Catholics for Free Choice,
Episcopal Women's Caucus,
Evangelicals for Choice,
Jewish Women International,
Lutheran Women's Caucus,
North American Federation of Temple Youth,
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,
Women of Reform Judaism,
Women's American ORT,
Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,
Women's League for Conservative Judaism

[/QUOTE]

Current abortion beliefs of religious groups
 
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain. We can get numbers to say whatever we want.

What you said may be true but so is the following:
37% of PP income is from abortions. That paints a much different picture than the 3% statistic.
PP performs 340 abortions for every one adoption referral.
According to PP's own 2009 report, 98% of all services to pregnant women was abortions.
In 2009 PP performed 27 percent of all abortions in the US.
Clearly this is an enterprise built around abortions.

Here's a really interesting one:
For its 3 million unduplicated clients in 2008, Planned Parenthood
supplied more than 3.7 million "testing and treatment" services for
sexually transmitted infections (STIs).16 This figure has been increasing
over the past few years, from 1,255,036 in 2002 to 3,018,077 in 2006.17

In other words, the testing, treatment and education they are providing for STIs is not making their clients more responsible.

If you believe in what they do that's certainly your right. But if you have been misled by them or they are not doing their job effectively, it would be understandable that you, as a supporter, would be at least a little annoyed.
Please follow this link. The above revelations are from their own reports.
http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/Chiaroscuro_PP_Analysis_March_2011.pdf

Actually, you are not reporting the truth. When it is said that only about 3% of all services provided was abortions they are absolutely right.

STI and STD testing and treatments: 4,475,013 services provided
Contraception: 3,436,813 services provided
Cancer and Screening: 1,307,570 services provided
Other women's health services: 1,179,263 services provided
Abortion services: 333,964 services provided
Other services: 132,036 services provided

Total services provided: 10,864,659

Of those services provided, 3.1% are abortions.

So the claim that only 3% is abortions is almost completely correct, they are only 0.07% off.
 
Perfect timing Peter King.

Here's a new bombshell of sorts.

PP's percentages are based on providing 10,864,659 medical services, that's why they claim that their 333,964 abortions account for about 3% of their services.
But LOOK CLOSELY please:

They have this line in another part of their 2011 report:
"In 2011, we provided nearly 11 million medical services for nearly three million people..."

IN OTHER WORDS based on the number of actual individual clients ("nearly 3 million"), about 11% of PP clients had abortions.

11% of PP clients got abortions in 2011.

If there's another way to interpret these numbers please have at it.
Here's is a link to PP's website, the statistical information is on pages 1 & 2.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
 
To continue my prior post, it sounds as if a client visiting PP for a pregnancy test, then a follow up, then a medical exam to see if they are medically ready for an abortion, then an abortion and then a follow up exam, PP will count this as 5 medical services and one abortion.

In other words, only 20% of these medical services ended in abortion.

Can even the supporters of PP admit that this is misleading?
 
37% of their income from services derives from abortions (this income does not include money the government gives them).

This is not true, and since the untruthfulness of this has been pointed out and explained to you more than once, how do you expect to me think you are posting honestly

37% of their income from health centers comes from abortions but health centers are just a small part of what they do.

Please stop trying to invent new ways to make dishonest claims. The facts have already been posted, and clearly show that what you posted earlier was untrue when you said it, and a lie when your source said it. At first, it was possible to believe that that you sincerely believed what you posted. However, your continued efforts to argue that what is clearly untrue is somehow true reveals the dishonesty of your posts.
 
To continue my prior post, it sounds as if a client visiting PP for a pregnancy test, then a follow up, then a medical exam to see if they are medically ready for an abortion, then an abortion and then a follow up exam, PP will count this as 5 medical services and one abortion.

In other words, only 20% of these medical services ended in abortion.

Can even the supporters of PP admit that this is misleading?

Yes, your post was misleading. You just made up services in order to inflate your #'s.
 
This is not true, and since the untruthfulness of this has been pointed out and explained to you more than once, how do you expect to me think you are posting honestly

37% of their income from health centers comes from abortions but health centers are just a small part of what they do.

Please stop trying to invent new ways to make dishonest claims. The facts have already been posted, and clearly show that what you posted earlier was untrue when you said it, and a lie when your source said it. At first, it was possible to believe that that you sincerely believed what you posted. However, your continued efforts to argue that what is clearly untrue is somehow true reveals the dishonesty of your posts.
I didn't see any distinction between PP in general and their, ironically named, health centers. I thought the figures I was looking at was their total income.
Can you show me a link to this?

I think you should know if someone's lying or mistaken before you make an accusation like that. It's just not worth the filler making your post less readable.

HOWEVER, woohoo, you didn't use the word "fascist", time to celebrate.
 
Yes, your post was misleading. You just made up services in order to inflate your #'s.
Go to the link I provided which goes to their actual website and tell me where my interpretation is wrong.
I'm not saying I'm not necessarily mistaken, just show me where.
 
I didn't see any distinction between PP in general and their, ironically named, health centers. I thought the figures I was looking at was their total income.
Can you show me a link to this?

The facts have already been posted with documenting links. Whether you see it or not, is of no importance.

I think you should know if someone's lying or mistaken before you make an accusation like that. It's just not worth the filler making your post less readable.

HOWEVER, woohoo, you didn't use the word "fascist", time to celebrate.

Not only should I know the difference between being mistaken and lying, I *do* know the difference. When someone continues to insist something is true after it has been incontrovertibly proven to be false, they are posting lies.
 
Go to the link I provided which goes to their actual website and tell me where my interpretation is wrong.
I'm not saying I'm not necessarily mistaken, just show me where.

Nothing at the link supports your claim that abortions require 5 services or that PP reports it as requiring 5 services. You made it up. That is dishonest
 
I think "percentage of income " is a clusterfudge to think about,

If all they did was one abortion and give away 1 million condoms, you could say 100% of their income comes from abortion.

My point is that so much of what they do is either free or dirt cheap, how can anyone of us know what the breakdown is.

I would love to see their numbers.
 
I hate it when people refer to people as either "Pro-Choice" or "Anti-Choice" as it does not in any way give the babies ANY choice.

Call it what it is. Pro-Abortion or Anti-Abortion.

And don't call people "evil" for opposing the murder of babies. Evil is murdering innocent babies.
 
The facts have already been posted with documenting links. Whether you see it or not, is of no importance.
I don't think what your claiming has had an accompanying link. I provide them when people ask, unless you're just making stuff up you should do the same.
 
I don't think what your claiming has had an accompanying link. I provide them when people ask, unless you're just making stuff up you should do the same.

What you have claimed to think has proven to be dishonest. This latest post is just more of the same

I'll look forward to you posting a link (or more likely, not) that supports your claim that PP's reports abortions as requiring five medical services
 
Nothing at the link supports your claim that abortions require 5 services or that PP reports it as requiring 5 services. You made it up. That is dishonest
Nice try Sangha. The post in which I said that, #89, was preceded by me saying "it sounds as if....", so I was making it clear that in that instance I was just theorizing.

When I asked you to check the numbers yourself, that was in post #88, the one that proves PP's misleading use of statistics.
So go ahead, don't avoid it. Show me how PP's own provided numbers can be interpreted in a different way. Maybe you'll find a way, maybe I'm wrong.

I ask that knowing you will most likely avoid doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom